To my dearest Obamabots

[Hooya]

And I even agree with you. Reconsideration can even become an admirable element of one's leadership. However Obama's flip-flopping is demonstrated from his lack of leadership. On every issue from nuclear power, to clean coal, to drilling he would either be critical or on the fence. And when the public opinion seems to lean the other way, he would come to a conclusion that of McCain's. Especially when America is targeted under terrorism, political scrutiny and the media, the last thing we need is a pliable President. Obama's concerns are about placating the people, not serving them. While talking to a Hispanic community, he told them that the American population should learn Spanish to be able to talk to immigrants.

You need to read my links, not just my comments on them.

Fair enough opinions on the Georgian thing. Like I said I couldn't find any really decent links on those. You didn't really comment on the candidates' stances, but whatever.

As far as Iraq. I don't believe that we are "at war" there. It is an Occupation. As the RNC protester's sign said: You cannot win an occupation. There is no "white flag". What exactly would we lose by drawing out? Oil? Big Fukin deal! We need to get off our oil addiction anyway - Obama has the right solution to that situation in my opinion.

Iran is a totally different issue, don't bring it into the Iraq debate. Just because the names are similar doesn't mean the situation is.

 

[Prophet]

A4NoOb, you are too cute for your own good.

Now here's my post in it's entirety:

Obama.

Because he is black and my niece and nephew need some light.

Because although I can't say I'm optimistic that his presidency will be as grand and revolutionary as I wish, I think that I can afford him a chance. After 8 years of seeing the American ideals twisted via fear, I think we can afford an inspirational figure a chance to bring about the "change" he seems to genuinely believe in. How ever naive it might ultimately be.

Lastly, because he is the lesser of two evils. McCain voted against making Martin Luther Kings birthday a national holiday. So yeah, I'd rather see the nation burn than give it to him.
Typical, that you would take it out of context to prove your point.

First off, I never meant to imply that I was or was not taking race into account when it came to how I would be voting. I am forced to take my race into account in all things; being black is not something I can turn on and off at my convenience. Furthermore, you may not have noticed but I have been making a larger point. You see when you are having a debate, you try not to impose your personal inclinations. I know it sounds weird to you but some people like to come to the table without preconceived notions stapled to their sleeves. Some people actually like to argue through logic, that way we can actually see which ideas fit and which are based solely in our biases. All I have done in this thread is argue a simple point (which I might add is yet to be scathed); a people who have endured due to their race, should not be asked to now separate race from how they will vote.

This point is underscored here:

That is to say, men have died in this country over race. Race was a good enough reason to kill us, was good enough reason to oppress us, for years it was a good enough reason not to allow us to vote, but now race is small; too tiny a reason to use when choosing a candidate. Now that race, in the context of this campaign, might for once not serve the agenda of the white ruling class; now we need to throw race out the window. Your ignorance literally pains me, because I feel that reaching you is hopeless.
And here:

Don't tell my people how they should or should not vote; after slavery, after Jim Crow, after the lynching of our fathers, after the rape of our mothers, after desegregation, after being 3/5s of a man, after the death of our leaders, after the FBI wire taps, after poor schools and housing, after all this at the hands of the white ruling class... Do not tell me or my people not to vote based on race. We have been murdered and oppressed for our race and now you would cry foul if we thought to vote based on the color of our skin?

Now I'm not sure if you have some type of selective reading disorder or what but I'm really trying to make this simple enough for you to get. We have come to a junction. We have my argument: the black man does not need to justify his vote; and then we have my personal feelings; Obama is a black man and it would do my niece and nephew's spirits good to see him succeed.

My argument is the only thing I have brought into this thread. Why? Because you posed a faulty claim that begged to be debated and unlike you I know the parameters of debate. I posted my personal feelings in the other thread, because we were sharing our opinions. You out of sheer ineptitude, have decided to mix the two together. As if the heart and mind are one, as if logic can not be separated from emotion.

Why would you attempt this? Maybe because you are a small person who wishes only to appear “right”. Or perhaps you are inclined to say that my argument is rooted in my personal bias, hence making it all fair game? Well, if so you'd only prove to make yourself look even sillier. I have plainly stated that voting based on race is not necessarily a logical thing to do. Once again:

QUOTE(Prophet @ Sep 6 2008, 05:56 AM)

Let me be perfectly clear. I am not advocating or implying that voting based on race is the informed or responsible thing to do, all I am saying is this: I will be damned if any black man in this country should have to pause, to explain or justify their vote.

So, where does that leave us? Well it leaves my actual argument untouched and the logic of my personal inclinations questioned first by me and then baselessly attacked by you.

*whisper* If you just leave the thread quietly, Maybe no one will notice?

P.S. I find it absolutely adorable that you keep track of all my past posts. I think someone might have a crush on me.

 

[JPH]

 

[MelodieOctavia]

I'm voting Prophet for president simply because he pwned this "debate" into the ground.

Like I said before, vote for whoever you want to it's nobody's business what your reason is for voting. hell some people voted for Bush because he was "handsome and well groomed" and nobody said a damn thing, so whats the big deal about race?I think it would be a nice change to see a black man in the oval office, but thats just me.

 

[jtroye32]

i read that there is a facility here in the US somewhere (name slips my mind at the moment) that trained a lot of major oppressors.

well, if you read it, it must be true.

i don't recite garbage.
---------
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Official seal of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
Official seal of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC or WHINSEC), formerly the School of the Americas (SOA; Spanish: Escuela de las Américas) is a United States Department of Defense facility at Fort Benning near Columbus, Georgia.

Between 1946 and 2001, the SOA trained more than 61,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Some of them became notorious for having been responsible for human rights violations, including generals Leopoldo Galtieri and Manuel Noriega, dictators such as Bolivia's Hugo Banzer as well as some of Augusto Pinochet's officers.[1][2] The terrorist Luis Posada Carriles was educated here by 1961, although he never graduated.[3] [4][5] Critics of the school argue that the education encouraged such practices and that this continues in the WHINSEC. This is denied by the WHINSEC and its supporters who argue that the alleged connection is at least sometimes weak. According to the WHINSEC the education now emphasizes democracy and human rights. [6][7]

 

[Hanafuda]

i read that there is a facility here in the US somewhere (name slips my mind at the moment) that trained a lot of major oppressors.

well, if you read it, it must be true.

i don't recite garbage.
---------
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Official seal of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
Official seal of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

Interesting read. I had not heard of this before. Thanks. What's most interesting to me is that it's been around for so long, has clearly created more trouble than its done good, and congress just keeps on funding it, regardless of which party holds the majority.

 

[Hanafuda]

To clarify, when I say the “white ruling class” I am speaking about the top 1% in America who seemingly own 90% of everything.

Obama also belongs to that class.

 

[omatic]

This just goes to show that the internets is serious business.

 

[kikuchiyo]

To clarify, when I say the “white ruling class” I am speaking about the top 1% in America who seemingly own 90% of everything.

Obama also belongs to that class.

Yeah he earned his way there, from a single parent family to going and working at the best law schools in America.

And I don't know why Americans think their leader should be "one of the guys." My leader should be smarter than me; I don't want to have a beer with George Bush, I want him to run the damn country.

As for not responding to your points, A4NoOb, you're not interested in a debate, as you've shown in how you talk to Prophet, you're just interested in spewing your opinion. I don't have time to waste doing research for people like that.

 

[laminaatplaat]

Why should we propose waving a white flag when American casualties have almost dropped to 0? When the democratic government in Iraq has finally started controlling the situation by making negotiations with the Sunni population? And considering Ayatollahs from Iran are trying to destabilize the entire Middle east. Even if McCain wins the election, it will take a while for drilling in Alaska and off shore resources to offset American imports from the Middle East, so McCain's idea of "staying the course" makes more sense than the opposite.

I wouldn't say that US casualty's have been reduced to almost 0

Jan-07 83
Feb-07 81
Mar-07 81
Apr-07 104
May-07 126
Jun-07 101
Jul-07 80
Aug-07 84
Sep-07 66
Oct-07 38
Nov-07 37
Dec-07 23
Jan-08 40
Feb-08 29
Mar-08 39
Apr-08 52
May-08 19
Jun-08 29
Jul-08 13
Aug-08 23
Sep-08 4 (it is only the 7th op September)
Total 4155 (since march '03)

(source: http://icasualties.org/oif/USDeathByMonth.aspx)

But it looks like it is going in the right direction. On the other hand, 0 US casualty's is nowhere near the same thing as being done with the peace keeping operation (since this is not a war). So you can't say no American soldiers are dying so it is safe here, lets go home!

 

[Hooya]

To clarify, when I say the “white ruling class” I am speaking about the top 1% in America who seemingly own 90% of everything.

Obama also belongs to that class.

Obama is not in the top 1%. McCain is though. And as recently as 2003 he was still making less than 100k. He's much more closely connected to the typical American income than McCain is strictly financially speaking. Yes, he's doing well now, but he wouldn't have made it this far if he wasn't.

 

[A4NoOb]

<!--QuoteBegin-Prophet+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prophet)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now here's my post in it's entirety:

<b>Obama.

Because he is black and my niece and nephew need some light.

Because although I can't say I'm optimistic that his presidency will be as grand and revolutionary as I wish, I think that I can afford him a chance. After 8 years of seeing the American ideals twisted via fear, I think we can afford an inspirational figure a chance to bring about the "change" he seems to genuinely believe in. How ever naive it might ultimately be.

Lastly, because he is the lesser of two evils. McCain voted against making Martin Luther Kings birthday a national holiday. So yeah, I'd rather see the nation burn than give it to him.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don’t see how revealing your entire post changes my point. Claiming this was your emotion is even more obscure because we all vote based logistics coupled with emotion. Is it the naïve belief in change that you even admit to? Or is that McCain voted against Martin Luther King day your justification? Without having any understanding <i>why</i> McCain voted against it.

Spoiler

Sources: Newsweek Magazine 1-19-1998, page 62

January 6, 1964, was a long day for Martin Luther King Jr. He spent the morning seated in the reserved section of the Supreme Court, listening as lawyers argued New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a landmark case rising out of King's crusade against segregation in Alabama. The minister was something of an honored guest: Justice Arthur Goldberg quietly sent down a copy of Kings account of the Montgomery bus boycott, "Stride Toward Freedom," asking for an autograph. That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and the sounds of illicit sex--including King's cries of "I'm f--ing for God" and "I'm not a n**** tonight!"

This is your hero? Who was ashamed to be black and needed to fornicate with white prostitutes to feel reasured?


<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Typical, that you would take it out of context to prove your point.

First off, I never meant to imply that I was or was not taking race into account when it came to how I would be voting. I am forced to take my race into account in all things; being black is not something I can turn on and off at my convenience. Furthermore, you may not have noticed but I have been making a larger point. You see when you are having a debate, you try not to impose your personal inclinations. I know it sounds weird to you but some people like to come to the table without preconceived notions stapled to their sleeves. Some people actually like to argue through logic, that way we can actually see which ideas fit and which are based solely in our biases. All I have done in this thread is argue a simple point (which I might add is yet to be scathed); a people who have endured due to their race, should not be asked to now separate race from how they will vote.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Did you “endure due to their race” as a personal experience, or was this something you learned through the Black History Curriculum? Are you forced into segregate schools? Onto the back of the bus? Unemployed because of racism? Because in the current system lead by Affirmative Action, it is the majority of Caucasians enduring discrimination. Federal procurement has extended over 300 billion dollars a year and shown preferential treatment towards women and minorities in private sectors. How many potential Caucasians are turned down government jobs because of imposed racial quotas? If we both applied as a teacher, what matters is not if I have higher qualifications than you, but our color of skin. The fact that you are black and I am white will result in your employment and my disqualification. And you want more of this when Obama becomes elected?

<!--QuoteBegin-Prophet+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prophet)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is to say, men have died in this country over race. Race was a good enough reason to kill us, was good enough reason to oppress us, for years it was a good enough reason not to allow us to vote, but now race is small; too tiny a reason to use when choosing a candidate. Now that race, in the context of this campaign, might for once not serve the agenda of the white ruling class; now we need to throw race out the window. Your ignorance literally pains me, because I feel that reaching you is hopeless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->I suppose your ignorance comes from your segregated school experience some 50 years ago. But since you love to play the victim, let’s have a history lesson. Before white slave traders entered this shameful profession dominated by Arabs and Black Chieftains, millions of European whites felt victims of White Gold trade practices:

<!--coloro:#0000FF--><span style="color:#0000FF"><!--/coloro-->A million Europeans enslaved<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<a href="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040310-115506-8528r.htm" target="_blank">http://washingtontimes.com/national/200403...15506-8528r.htm</a>

Spoiler

"One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature — that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true," said Mr. Davis, an Ohio State University professor.
"Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland."
In a new book, "Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800," Mr. Davis calculates that between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates called "corsairs" and forced to work in North Africa during that period.
The raids were so aggressive that entire Mediterranean seaside towns were abandoned by frightened residents. "Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe.

<a href="http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm" target="_blank">http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm</a>

Spoiler

Davis said his findings suggest that this invisible slavery of European Christians deserves more attention from scholars.
“We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under,” he said. “Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa.”

<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Prophet+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prophet)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now I'm not sure if you have some type of selective reading disorder or what but I'm really trying to make this simple enough for you to get. We have come to a junction. We have my argument: the black man does not need to justify his vote; and then we have my personal feelings; Obama is a black man and it would do my niece and nephew's spirits good to see him succeed.

My argument is the only thing I have brought into this thread. Why? Because you posed a faulty claim that begged to be debated and unlike you I know the parameters of debate. I posted my personal feelings in the other thread, because we were sharing our opinions. You out of sheer ineptitude, have decided to mix the two together. As if the heart and mind are one, as if logic can not be separated from emotion.

Why would you attempt this? Maybe because you are a small person who wishes only to appear “right”. Or perhaps you are inclined to say that my argument is rooted in my personal bias, hence making it all fair game? Well, if so you'd only prove to make yourself look even sillier. I have plainly stated that voting based on race is not necessarily a logical thing to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->This is the President of the United States. Not the President of Emotions, not the President of Race or the President of Personal Inclination. This president is going to determine foreign affairs, energy status and taxes. And you think voting is something personal, affecting only yourself. Well here’s some news for you: I’m affected by your vote as well. So when Obama get’s elected and I’m taxed higher, have higher energy bills, increased terrorism and when the American dollar plummets I’m suppose to say “Oh well, you only put your emotions before logistics.”

After the Treaty of Versailles, many Germans were filled with emotions and decided to target the Jewish population as the oppressors. Six million Jews died as a consequence of Hitler’s election; and by your principles, those Jewish people have no right to criticize Germans for their vote.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->

"<i>*whisper* If you just leave the thread quietly, Maybe no one will notice?

P.S. I find it absolutely adorable that you keep track of all my past posts. I think someone might have a crush on me.</i>"

If I would be gay, I would have more benefits with Affirmative Action policies when I search for a job. But no luck.

<!--QuoteBegin-Hooya+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hooya)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as Iraq. I don't believe that we are "at war" there. It is an Occupation. As the RNC protester's sign said: You cannot win an occupation. There is no "white flag". What exactly would we lose by drawing out? Oil? Big Fukin deal! We need to get off our oil addiction anyway - Obama has the right solution to that situation in my opinion.

Iran is a totally different issue, don't bring it into the Iraq debate. Just because the names are similar doesn't mean the situation is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Obama’s “solution” is to tax oil companies through the roof. That doesn’t help the common American get from their home to work.

And don’t patronize me on the distinction in names between Iran and Iraq. The same people like you are ignorant of the fact that the majority of Iranians and Iraqis are Shiites. Both countries could easily fall into the rules of Iranian ayatollahs. Up to now, a reasonably elected Government governs Iraq, and America is doing what that government asked them to do.

 

[Jiggah]

Oh please. Stop trying to make this an identity issue and make it a policy one.

A simple request, give John McCain's stances on policy. We've been through 5 pages and you've failed to do so. I'm finding it hard to see how you're any different than "Obamabots."

 

[A4NoOb]

Oh please. Stop trying to make this an identity issue and make it a policy one.

And these concerns aren't forwarded to Prophet because... oh shi- he's a deomcrat.

A simple request, give John McCain's stances on policy. We've been through 5 pages and you've failed to do so. I'm finding it hard to see how you're any different than "Obamabots."

Spoiler

McCain is for self-sufficient energy. Our renewable energy plans are basically draining more money than it gives us. McCain wants to promote the use of clean coal, nuclear power plants and drill for oil along the Pacific and Gulf coasts. When the issue of The Surge arose, McCain stood alone against the media. And The Surge Was Successful. He encourages missile defense systems in NATO countries and took immediate action against Russia when they invaded Georgia. He wants to increase troops in Iraq and Afghanistan so they can finish the war more efficiently. This is an addendum to initiating smaller governments and cutting more taxes

This was from page 2. Suffice it to say that your response to it was addressed when the other Republican bandwagon bashers came in and talked about the Iraq war, Georgia/Russian conflict(with some additional info thanks to laminaatplaat) or energy plans.

laminaatplaat

(source: http://icasualties.org/oif/USDeathByMonth.aspx)

But it looks like it is going in the right direction. On the other hand, 0 US casualty's is nowhere near the same thing as being done with the peace keeping operation (since this is not a war). So you can't say no American soldiers are dying so it is safe here, lets go home!

I stand corrected, but a nearly 80% drop from last year doesn't suggest a change in direction? Negotiations from the government of Iraq are already in progress.
SideNote: your link 404'd

 

[Jiggah]

Oh please. Stop trying to make this an identity issue and make it a policy one.

And these concerns aren't forwarded to Prophet because... oh shi- he's a deomcrat.

A simple request, give John McCain's stances on policy. We've been through 5 pages and you've failed to do so. I'm finding it hard to see how you're any different than "Obamabots."

Spoiler

McCain is for self-sufficient energy. Our renewable energy plans are basically draining more money than it gives us. McCain wants to promote the use of clean coal, nuclear power plants and drill for oil along the Pacific and Gulf coasts. When the issue of The Surge arose, McCain stood alone against the media. And The Surge Was Successful. He encourages missile defense systems in NATO countries and took immediate action against Russia when they invaded Georgia. He wants to increase troops in Iraq and Afghanistan so they can finish the war more efficiently. This is an addendum to initiating smaller governments and cutting more taxes

This was from page 2. Suffice it to say that your response to it was addressed when the other Republican bandwagon bashers came in and talked about the Iraq war, Georgia/Russian conflict(with some additional info thanks to laminaatplaat) or energy plans.

laminaatplaat

(source: http://icasualties.org/oif/USDeathByMonth.aspx)

But it looks like it is going in the right direction. On the other hand, 0 US casualty's is nowhere near the same thing as being done with the peace keeping operation (since this is not a war). So you can't say no American soldiers are dying so it is safe here, lets go home!

I stand corrected, but a nearly 80% drop from last year doesn't suggest a change in direction? Negotiations from the government of Iraq are already in progress.
SideNote: your link 404'd

And I replied to it, which you conveniently brush over. As I've said, McCain is now also for renewable energy (he said as much in his speech), but he's voted against every single piece of legislation that deals with it. Obama is also for clean coal, nuclear, and drilling. That's one issue. Give me more. What is his policy on the economy? He says decrease spending and cutting taxes. What programs is he willing to cut? A lot of that spending is tied with the war. If he's going to cut programs to be fiscal, what programs? Is he willing to cut money for the military? If not, do we continue borrowing from foreign countries? He says no, but again doesn't explain how we get out of it without touching any other part of his policy, which also ties into the tax cut. With a deficit, and I'll assume with continued military spending, where is the money going to be coming from? At least Obama gave a possibility of where that money will be coming from, taxing of corporations.

 

[A4NoOb]

And I replied to it, which you conveniently brush over. As I've said, McCain is now also for renewable energy (he said as much in his speech), but he's voted against every single piece of legislation that deals with it. Obama is also for clean coal, nuclear, and drilling. That's one issue. Give me more. What is his policy on the economy? He says decrease spending and cutting taxes. What programs is he willing to cut? A lot of that spending is tied with the war. If he's going to cut programs to be fiscal, what programs? Is he willing to cut money for the military? If not, do we continue borrowing from foreign countries? He says no, but again doesn't explain how we get out of it without touching any other part of his policy, which also ties into the tax cut. With a deficit, and I'll assume with continued military spending, where is the money going to be coming from? At least Obama gave a possibility of where that money will be coming from, taxing of corporations.

Regarding oil drilling it was my assumption Obama was against it: http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/gree...g_not_a_lo.html
Regarding nuclear power, Obama has said little about whether or not he's for it. In fact he's criticized McCain for planning to make more nuclear powerplants by 2030: http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsU...443769620080624
Ronald Reagan policies of cutting taxes and forming smaller governments has resulted in government revenues increasing. Deficit also increase due to Democrats in Congress requesting social spending. The deficit we are occurring is not a tragedy of prime concern is if our economy is growing. When George Bush Senior struck a deal with Democrats in Congress to dramatically reduce deficit, recession was created and it in fact didn't reduce deficit at all. Businesses are the future of the economy.

 

[PizzaPasta]

 

[Prophet]

1. A4NoOb, if as you say all votes are based on "logistics coupled with emotion" than why do you fault the black man who would vote for Obama based on race? Is it strange that an emotion of comradely might implore him to do so? I think your original point just flat-lined.

2. To speak of Martin as some how less than a martyr is simply ignorant. I don't care what he did with whores or what he exclaimed in their presence, it does not subtract from what he has done for his people. Scratch that, it does not subtract from what he has done for all people.

Let me add, isn't it general knowledge that McCain cheated on his past wife? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8aa_1219351070

His language has been equally lewd, there are reports of him calling his current wife a C*nt in public. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/07/r...ti_n_95429.html

3. As far as how race has personally effected my life, I can say wholeheartedly that I have endured. I have endured chiefly the remnants of oppression. No I wasn't around years ago for desegregation, but I can speak on gentrification. I can speak on hunger, I can speak on the danger that swells in the ghetto. I can speak on overpopulated schools and children who go without. I can speak about one in every nine black men being in prison. I can speak on bad decisions and I can speak on too few opportunities. So no, I never picked cotton or cleaned a house. But I'm living the fallout of that. My people are disproportionately disadvantaged, are we to pretend slavery and Jim crow had no hand in that?

4. Affirmative action is not something I agree with. You see, I speak as a black man second; Firstly I speak as an American who is disenfranchised. And being disenfranchised is not racially exclusive. There are whites and blacks and browns of all hues that will go to sleep hungry tonight. In essence, the problems of being black are second to the problems of being black-listed in America. I believe that those who need the most help, should be given the most aid; race holds no water here. Which isn't to say that the historically oppressed don't merit an extra leg up, but I think a better form of aid would be better schools for children in the ghettos of America. These children are disproportionately made up of minorities and they are in desperate need. Two birds, one stone.

5. I like the part where you try to educate me while completely missing the point. How does your assertion that slavery existed beyond America, excuse the concept that a people who endured said slavery (and Jim Crow) because of the color of their skin, should now be told not to vote based on race? "Lynch me for being black"; is a fine logic. But now voting impartially due to race is somehow inexcusable. As if a vote were some how a more drastic matter than the lives of my people.

And you think voting is something personal, affecting only yourself.

No I understand that it affects more than just me and I take that chiefly into consideration, but um... I do think voting is something personal. Seeing as we all have the right to vote, then it stands to reason that we all have the right to decide whom to vote for based on our own criteria. Maybe the idea of having a “thinking” man as a president is something that holds appeal for me. Maybe I think that would be good for this country. Maybe I'm not an Obamabot, perhaps I actually like Obama's policies. Your right he will raise taxes and guess what? I don't care. I am willing to part with dollars if it means that we can improve this nation. You know; Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.

You have the right to back McCain, and I might disagree with your reasoning and views but I wouldn't lay Pre-Nazi claims at your feet (as you have done to me). Anyone can look back on history and make inferences. Hindsight is after all 20/20. The future however is not and I assume you aren't a psychic so a lot of the claims you make are just conjecture. What's worse, it isn't even remotely sensible conjecture.

I've heard of shooting yourself in the foot, but you must be cut off from the knee down by now.

Lastly, a side note. To those who have offered kind words, to those who came into this thread with validity to their claims and openness to opposition, and to those who have simply taken the time to read and digest the admittedly lengthy diatribes of myself and others, I offer my whole hearted appreciation. However naive, I find something beautiful in the idea that we have collectively taken time from our weekends to engage in a discussion.

 

[Jiggah]

And I replied to it, which you conveniently brush over. As I've said, McCain is now also for renewable energy (he said as much in his speech), but he's voted against every single piece of legislation that deals with it. Obama is also for clean coal, nuclear, and drilling. That's one issue. Give me more. What is his policy on the economy? He says decrease spending and cutting taxes. What programs is he willing to cut? A lot of that spending is tied with the war. If he's going to cut programs to be fiscal, what programs? Is he willing to cut money for the military? If not, do we continue borrowing from foreign countries? He says no, but again doesn't explain how we get out of it without touching any other part of his policy, which also ties into the tax cut. With a deficit, and I'll assume with continued military spending, where is the money going to be coming from? At least Obama gave a possibility of where that money will be coming from, taxing of corporations.

Regarding oil drilling it was my assumption Obama was against it: http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/gree...g_not_a_lo.html
Regarding nuclear power, Obama has said little about whether or not he's for it. In fact he's criticized McCain for planning to make more nuclear powerplants by 2030: http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsU...443769620080624
Ronald Reagan policies of cutting taxes and forming smaller governments has resulted in government revenues increasing. Deficit also increase due to Democrats in Congress requesting social spending. The deficit we are occurring is not a tragedy of prime concern is if our economy is growing. When George Bush Senior struck a deal with Democrats in Congress to dramatically reduce deficit, recession was created and it in fact didn't reduce deficit at all. Businesses are the future of the economy.

Obama's drilling policy is that oil companies are not utilizing the land leases that they've been given. There are still a ton of land that can provide oil that has not been developed. I also believe his idea of limited drilling goes in hand with the fact that states will have a choice as to whether or not drilling will be permitted on their coasts. Both Republican governors of Florida and California have rejected drilling off their shores.

The criticism of McCain's plan is that it does not deal with where the waste will be stored, which is indicated in the article you posted. A limited amount of nuclear power plants would be fine, but 45? Really? Where do we put all that waste? In my backyard, in your's?

During the Reagan years, the poor actually got poorer and the rich got richer. It's what's happening right now. The deficit during the Reagan years weren't just tied to the Democrats social programs, but in a huge part due to increased military spending during the Cold War, on defense programs that went nowhere i.e. the Star Wars program. It's wonderful that he got revenues, but he outpaced the revenues with spending. Also, our current deficit is not a concern now, but at some point in the future it has to be addressed. The fact that foreign countries are buying into America isn't a concern? What are McCain's proposal that will stimulate the economy?

I agree, businesses are the future. However, there is a huge difference between a small business and a corporation. When money is flowing out of the economy, but not back in we have a problem. Small businesses are the future, where money and work will stay within the country. Corporations, not so much.

 

[Hooya]

Ronald Reagan policies of cutting taxes and forming smaller governments has resulted in government revenues increasing. Deficit also increase due to Democrats in Congress requesting social spending. The deficit we are occurring is not a tragedy of prime concern is if our economy is growing. When George Bush Senior struck a deal with Democrats in Congress to dramatically reduce deficit, recession was created and it in fact didn't reduce deficit at all. Businesses are the future of the economy.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Read this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html
Then come back and talk about Democrat v. Republican economic policies and which expand or contract the economic divide.

You are a McCainbot. I have posted more policy in this thread than you have A4NoOb.

By the way, the phrase "smaller government" means absolutely NOTHING unless you say what exactly he's going to do to make it smaller. I'll tell you a few things that don't make government smaller that McCain supports:
1. Repealing Rowe v Wade - Forcing a religious policy of some onto everybody
2. Consitutional ban on gay marriage - see #1
3. Patriot Act - the single largest conceptual entrenchment of our personal freedoms that impacts the every day lives of millions of Americans

Please, tell me some of the things McCain will do to make government "smaller" (taxes are a non-issue, as long as they exist, they exist). Also, please tell me some things that Obama will do to make government "bigger". A "bigger" government to me imposes more restrictions on people's personal choices in their day to day lives.